I started covering markets at Forbes in the summer of 2007. Right around then a pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds imploded in the first tremors of the financial crisis, but I swear the recession isn't my fault. Armed with only a basic knowledge of Wall Street at the start, after a few thousand stories I've got a pretty good handle on this business. My contributions to the Forbes brand don't end when I leave the office either: I'm also a two-time MVP of the Forbes .400 softball team. Tips, story ideas, criticism, questions? Follow me here (click under my picture), on Twitter @SchaeferStreet, Google+, subscribe on Facebook or e-mail me at sschaefer_at_forbesdotcom.

Pretty much anything that does not go exactly according to plan in the securities markets these days is likely to spark a frenzy of lawsuits, and Facebook’s rocky public debut is no exception.

At least three lawsuits have been filed over the company’s initial public offering, including one in the Southern District of New York on behalf of three purchasers of Facebook common stock. The suit alleges that Facebook’s SEC filings prior to going public included “untrue statements of material fact,” chiefly regarding the company’s admission that its ability to monetize mobile users remains a challenge.

From the lawsuit:

The true facts at the time of the IPO were that Facebook was then experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users of its Facebook app or website through mobile devices rather than a traditional PC such that the Company told the Underwriter Defendants to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012. And, defendants failed to disclose that during the roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO, certain of the Underwriter Defendants reduced their second quarter and full year 2012 performance estimates for Facebook, which revisions were material information which awas not shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus.

The suit relies on reporting from Reuters, which discovered that underwriters including Morgan Stanley lowered their estimates on the social network’s revenue growth during the roadshow. Morgan Stanley has said that it followed its standard operating procedure for IPOs with Facebook.

Shares of Facebook managed a slim gain from the IPO price of $38 when they debuted Friday, but then spent the next two sessions in free-fall. The stock finally righted itself Wednesday, climbing 4.5% to $32.40.

As Forbes’ Halah Touryalai points out, the global Wall Street research settlement in the wake of the tech bubble aimed to separate analysts from the bankers crafting and selling a deal like Facebook’s. While this situation may show the settlement had its desired effect, the trouble arises if firms were cherry-picking which clients were privy to the fact that its analysts had dimmed their outlook on the social network. (See “Morgan Stanley Hit With Subpoena Over Facebook IPO.”)

Meanwhile, the finger-pointing over Facebook’s dud of a public debut continues. In a in a front-page story Wednesday cited sources who said CFO David Ebersman was the driving force behind a 25% increase in the size of the deal less than a week before the offering priced, though he was on the same page as the top Morgan Stanley banker on the deal

Michael Grimes, the co-head of global technology banking at Morgan Stanley, was his main confidant, they added.

“This IPO was an Ebersman and Grimes show,” said one of the people familiar with the matter. “They were joined at the hip.”

A separate lawsuit brought against Nasdaq OMX Group, alleges negligence on the part of the stock exchange operator, which delayed the initial trading in Facebook on Friday due to technical issues and then struggled to send execution confirmations notifying customers of completed trades for several hours.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

The violation of Reg FD isn’t exactly “not going exactly according to plan”; although it doesn’t seem like we can have a high-tech IPO nowadays without someone conveniently forgetting a basic tenet of finance or accounting.

Factor in the percentage of those users who are inactive or barely active, and then the users that are mobile-only and still account for zero revenue, and the ratio probably jumps to at least 175-200. To be a good investment, it’s going to require superbowl-like ad performance for decades, and it’s unrealistic to expect that Facebook will still be as popular by the end of this decade.

Granted – with all this capital they can develop a strategy of buying up every new thing that comes along and grabs interest, but they could easily do that with $10 billion (as long as they don’t make a habit of spending $1 billion on other companies that don’t make or sell anything either)

Do you buy a phone because of the hardware or because of it connects you with your family and friends? Do you read news because it’s on TV or internet or because it lets you be aware of the world? Communication and information is a trillion dollar industry and FB has taken it to a whole new level.

If you really sit down and analyze what part of your monthly budget you spend on virtual goods or things that connect you with your family, friends and world, you’ll be surprised!

This is the first company that has emphasized the importance of ‘people’ technology, rather than on making things smaller or flashy.

Advertising is not the only way FB can generate money. They haven’t even started monetizing in true sense and they have earned billions, and trillion dollar worth marketing and branding. They are a part of every news, every conversation. If FB is one of the most popular brands of all time, I wouldn’t be surprised.

When internet started, everyone thought it’s just gonna connect computers and people might earn from advertising etc. Then came e-commerce and everyone had similar arguments.

just wait and watch. I wish world was not so pessimistic. At least something good is happening to our economy, but people just want to see the negatives.